child labor!

More of that in america mate, illegal in China.

internet/media censorship

You need to view this in the context of protecting the revolution. Let's say that you have a revolution in whatever country you're in tomorrow, are you just going to let the internet be a free space to foster and create fascist dissidents? Are you going to let foreign (capitalist) countries run your social media for you? Or are you going to limit various things in order to ensure that only domestic companies run your internet-media so that you can police them appropriately if they try to weaponise those forms of media as tools to overthrow proletarian rule and install bourgeoise rule?

I assume you've actually read some marx here, but if not, I want to just quote a small segment of chapter 2 of the communist manifesto at you.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Pay special attention to what I've bolded here, the paragraph and bullet point 6. The point being that centralisation and control of all media is completely in-keeping with Marx's (and the other writers) views on the matter. Media is a tool of the bourgeoisie that costs a significant amount of money, it functions as a means of power exerted through wealth to control and influence outcomes in a state. Removing these from the bourgeoisie and centralising them in the hands of proletarian control is part of overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

The reason the bourgeoisie have propagandised you into disliking this is BECAUSE it massively harms and affects them. They wouldn't give a shit about it if it harmed the proles, they only give a shit because it affects them.

anti-LGBTQ

China practices a bottom-up system of power. Starting at the mass line via committees and polling. This does result in slower progress on social change than a top-down approach. With that said however, lgbt issues are progressing as younger generations age up, and this more or less guarantees progress as long as the system does not change as the overall population will exert its power over time. Boomers are the thing holding it back. It is also I think fair to point out that lgbt issues are not going great in the west, with a large push for reversal well underway.

uygher genocide

Literally didn't happen. An oppressive crackdown and re-education program? Yes sure. Genocide? No. A simple thought experiment that you should do here is to ask yourself how Israel, a country that is much much smaller with more resources to spend per population doesn't manage to stop evidence of its crimes from occurring(see /r/israelexposed), yet what have you actually seen of China's so-called genocide? Nothing. No refugees. No video evidence (in a country where people all have cameras). Fuck all.

What did happen was that China cracked down on islamic extremism that was being fostered through cia connections across the border with afghanistan, which the US was occupying at the time. China combatted this by undertaking an absolutely massive re-education program to raise the quality of living, jobs and prospects of susceptible people in the region. It turns out that people with good jobs don't want to do suicide bombings.

This is obviously a topic that needs more than 2 paragraphs to dispel. Feel free to question and dig deeper. There are certainly images you'll have seen without hearing the evidence against them, and there will be stories you've seen peddled from a false pov. I'm happy to go into them, I also recommend this report: https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang

positive and pro war relations with russia! (because fuck putin)

Geopolitically speaking it is essential for China to ensure Russia doesn't collapse or fall into the Western sphere. If it did then the result would be 50 nato bases planted on the border and China would be utterly surrounded, isolated, and any future of it as an influential power seriously hampered. It would be fucked quite frankly.

Not sure where you got the idea that they're pro-war. They are brokering for peace. Have been the entire time.

EDIT:

OH wait I can't believe I forgot to quote Lenin on freedom of the press

“All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.” -- V I Lenin, 1921

Freedom of media just means freedom of the bourgeoisie to buy and own all means of influence in society. None of them will be proletarian unless strictly controlled to be so, all of them will be owned by some fucking billionaire or fund that answers to many millionaires.

the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry

deleted by creator

Okay, so I managed to not only forget my password but neglect to properly save it on my password manager so unless there's a way to reset your password without an email by commencing in some sort of secret orgy with the mods, my main account is effectively fucked.

On a better note, I've read everybody's comments and have come to the conclusion that while China isn't perfect, it's sure as fuck doing better than America. (obligatory fuck America, should've added that in the original post)

Thanks for not treating me like a troll and instead as someone who was genuinely curious. Definitely gonna be frequenting this site more often. Also, Chris Dorner did nothing wrong

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

over a billion people are no longer living in poverty bc of the PRC. the world bank even admits they have accomplished most of that in the past 40 years alone. they have done great work in essentially ending homelessness and their home ownership rate is 90% . western sources admit it bc a lot of westerners can go to China and witness the living conditions. and they account for a third of the world's manufacturing output.

learn about the PRC, be aware of the source your information is coming from, and inspect citations when the author makes claims. it becomes much easier to see through propaganda movements western sources push like the sensationalization of anti-LGBT sentiment in China. or the published lies about the events in Xinjiang.

Nobody gets any civil rights if the CIA coups you and installs a fascist. Which is what happens if you go against western interests and aren't willing to take necessary countermeasures. Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran is my favorite example (though there are so, so many to choose from) of a left-ish leader who went against western interests, but he was a true believer in democracy and free speech and all that jazz. The CIA infiltrated every newspaper in the country, they hired people to protest against the government and they hired people to march for the government but wreck shit, they bribed people in every sector of society, from politicians to religious leaders to vote counters and so on. When the country got blockaded by the UK, he didn't align with that naughty Soviet Union but kept trying to get into the good graces of the bastion of freedom and democracy, the United States. The US, which had remained neutral in their struggle against the horribly oppressive colonial rule of :ukkk:, sold them down the river in exchange for UK support for NATO and the Korean War.

Why? Because the UK had more power, and righteousness and moral authority are meaningless compared to that. And nobody attains geopolitical power without fucking somebody over. That's how the world works. Mossadegh didn't accept that, he wasn't willing to be the bad guy. And what happened? He got replaced by a fascist, who brutally suppressed Iran's left until he got overthrown by the current government. How long until Iran gets another chance at a leftist government? Will they ever? These are the stakes of failure, never forget that.

Now personally, I don't like that state of affairs. I'd like it if there was a true international community, where if there was someone like Mossadegh who was unambiguously in the right, but crossed the interests of a powerful country, they'd still have potential friends to turn to. That is to say, a multipolar world, where countries have options and can choose their own destinies. China has flaws, yes, they're not above criticism. But you have to be willing to look past some degree of ruthlessness if you actually want someone to be able to challenge power and change the present state of things. Tbh, I wouldn't want to live in China, and not just because I'm queer. But China is paving the way (especially with BRI) for other countries to develop and survive, without dictating their domestic policy the way the World Bank/IMF do. Much of the world is still very much under the boot of colonialism, resources like mines and oil fields that were seized through force were never returned to the people they were seized from, even while they live in abject poverty while the owners are multi-national corporations run by some of the richest people on the planet.

You don't like China's style of government? That's fine. Do you like any style of government outside of neocolonialism? Then you should support China's government. Because it is through China that other options are becoming possible. If you don't believe me, then you need to learn more about the history of US backed regime change.

Tl;dr:

"Say whatever you want about me, I'm the bitch that lived"

:xi-lib-tears: :speech-l:

(Also a lot of stuff about China is made up or exaggerated. There are valid criticisms, but Western media has a track record of running all kinds of tabloid-tier stories.)

I'll bite:

CHILD LABOR: Yeah, it's bad, but China is working to reduce and abolish it. Like most Western nations it is illegal for children under 16 to work in normal jobs. However, they have exceptions for "special circumstances". This mostly leads to children in rural areas of China being employed on farms and such, not much unlike here in the US. It is important to remember China's meteoric rise from a nation racked by poverty and war in the 40s to the powerhouse it is today. That's not even 100 years. Took most everyone else a lot longer to get with the program.

CENSORSHIP: We all experience censorship all over the world. Here in the US certain views are censored from our media (our corporate media is part of the state). YouTube censors swear words. I can got on. China, like most Asian nations, cracks down hard on libel and slander. So defaming someone or spreading bullshit is censored and punished, unlike America. China is not alone in this. For instance, in Japan, you cannot even tell the truth about someone publicly if it would defame them. Like telling people your partner cheated on you. It has to be "in the public interest". The "censorship" in China reflects this value that is shared across many Asian cultures in that region and is nothing particularly special or heinous. Most people in that region are fine with these laws because they have different views on freedom than most Westerners.

ANTI-LGBTQ: This is not particularly special to China, sadly. The US has it's own issues here. The Arab world is a disgrace in regards to this. African nations struggle with this issue. South American nations struggle with this. Many Asian cultures struggle here as well. It is an awful truth that much of the world has a poor view on LGBTQ+ peoples and their rights and the struggle to protect the dignity of our LGBTQ+ comrades everywhere is ongoing. China is not exceptional in one way or the other here.

UYGHER GENOCIDE: Putting people in re-education camps is not good. As someone who has actually worked in corrections in the USA I can attest that in every correctional facility there are abuses that the average person would recoil from. It's why I did it for a short time and quit. It's why I'm an abolitionist. I am highly skeptical of the claims made about "organ harvesting" and nightly r*** because even in the most dire conditions these are particularly heinous. Remember that the guards in China are people, too, just as capable of good and evil as we are. It is also worth noting that the most vocal critics are all members of a weird cult in China and are generally only ever amplified by US propaganda outlets, for which the US media (our corporate state media) re-prints. So there is plenty of reason to be skeptical. It is also worth noting that for decades the US spent tens of millions trying to radicalize the Uyghurs into terrorists in China. So seeing our government officials here suddenly cry over their treatment while they previously wanted to turn them into suicide bombers really makes my blood boil. It is so disingenuous.

RUSSIA: Russia is a capitalist hell-hole now and the fall of the Soviet Union was one of the many tragedies of the last century. China does not have the "red scare" that the West has in regards to Russia. If you step back and look at things objectively, Russia is really no worse than many other nations, like the USA. Sure, they invaded a white nation. If only they were murdering brown people then our media wouldn't care. But I digress, Russia is bad. Ukraine also sucks. Ukrainian people don't deserve war. Well, nobody deserves it. China needs partners around the world that aren't antagonistic to them and Russia is one such partner. In fact, Chinese businesses are already filling the gaps in the Russian economy since they don't give a fuck about Western sanctions. China is looking at this from that perspective. Should they also let the average Russian suffer? Would that satisfy you?

I'm busy, but if someone doesn't write one in the meantime I might write a little about Tiananmen later.

TLDR the west has been telling big lies about China for decades. There was no massacre in the square. Wikileaks released diplomatic cables admitting this. Western reporters who were there have admitted this. Liu Xiaobo, one of the organizers of the protests, admitted this. There is footage on youtube of the crowd peacefully evacuating the square at the end of the night (fucking impossible to search on youtube, I'll have to dig through my favorites later). A Spanish film crew was present in the square all night. Reporters who described seeing shooting in the square from their hotel rooms were later shown to be staying in rooms with no view of the square.

CIA and NED buildup in Beijing prior to the event were widely acknowledged. Protest signs were suddenly in English. People suddenly had gasoline, a smattering of people suddenly had guns. Western intelligence has exploited its near-total control over foreign reporting on China to construct an almost entirely fictional narrative about the events at Tiananmen, and then amplify that narrative through dozens of media outlets until it took on a self-reinforcing life of its own in the public consciousness.

I'm happy to expand with context and Cool China Facts, but you're actually asking the wrong question and that's the most important issue.

Implicit in your question is a simple idea: is China Good or is China Bad? And further: if you were to rack up Good Things in China and compare them to Baf Things in China, would it end up with China Good or China Bad?

This is a liberal approach to understanding states, nations, the people within them, and the factions among them, and usually conflates all four: is the entire country, as if it were a person with agency, good or bad?

The reality will actually be that all of these categories have different facets and interactions. As an entire country in the real world, there will be good things and bad things and nuanced things and things that are bad but not as bad as elsewhere and things that are good but not as goof as elsewhete. And, most importantly, how is it positioned within the global geopolitical context, what is its trajectory, and what influence does it have on other nations and the overall system of capitalism. Because if you look at it that way, you will find that the forces opposed to China have been dominant white supremacist colonizers responsible for historical and ongoing monstrosities far beyond what a China Watcher will exaggerate and simplify and get racist about, and that China is offering a path to multipolarization that will and does shield other countries from the horrors of American (capital) hegemony.

So, this is all a preview to say that you should expect these things:

• Bad Things can happen in China. It's a country of over a billion people grappling with its own challenges and development. It's a country with peoplr and history, not a fantasy world of exactly how some Westerner thinks everything should be.

• Don't forget that a lot of those Bad Things are mostly propaganda.

• Don't forget to contextualize the bad things in relation to what other actors are doing. A common propaganda tactic in the US, the most propagandized country, is to criticize and sanction other countries doing far milder versions of horrors repeatedly carried out by US Empire. The US killed off millions of Iraqis through sanctions and the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure and a Yemeni child dies from deprivation every minute due to the US-driven Saudi campaign. Keep that in mind when you hear Western critiques of their enemy's alleged islamophobia.

• Don't forget your own context. What purpose does being vocally negative about China serve? Thay is the actual intent of the propaganda. You're not going to make China better by getting a bunch of Westerners to hate it. You're going to help manufacture consent for sanctions and war, both of which are actually intended to maintain US hegemony at the expense of common people that you woulf supposedly being sympathizing with. It's fine to develop internal critiques, buy if you aren't aware of the propaganda or your audience, you will simply reinforce the violent xenophobic status quo.

As an example of the propaganda, every single example you mentioned is tied up in a military-state-industrial complex of propaganda sources, which you might not be aware of, and beyond that, are all fed to us through a lens of maximization of sinophobic angles and false attributions inherent to our media system. For example, most things that you "know" about the treatment of Uyghurs, if you follow Western sources, are curated by one homophobic, antisemitic weirdo that can't read or speak Chinese (Zenz) and some CIA cutout cutouts (two layers) of weird nationalists who in no way represent common opinions among Uyghur people, but are propped up by US State Department funding. So you must contend with the reality that your information here, that you used to form strong opinions, is probably garbage, and you will have to start from scratch with a media critical lens.

And what you should discover is that China's approach to extremism in Xinjiang is indeed heavy-handed and has negative aspects to it. It is also a reaction to increasing Wahhabist extremism and terrorism in the region where hundreds were being killed. Wahhabism is not traditional, in any way, to Uyghur culture, which is a unique turkic culture with a relation to islam and cultural practices that is very different from Western stereotypes. You'll also find that the destabilization of Afghanistan and weaponization of Wahhabists against China, in Xinjiang, has been on the US' radar for over a decade. The Chinese national-level government's response to this was to (1) directly combat non-traditional Wahhabist practices that oppress women and promote terrorism, and (2) promote economic development to support increasing urbanization and generally improve quality of life, as people with prospects are less radicalizable. This did mean, for example, compulsory attendance of courses to improve folks' understanding of Chinese, to develop practical skills, to get placed into jobs and industries where they can gain experience and bring that back to their own communities. There was monitoring of activities and behaviors for Wahhabist activity. There were some officials (remember, we are talking about real people) who engaged in abuse. There were indeed bad things, mixed in with a program that successfully reformed ascendant non-traditional violent and oppressive forces and improved the economic standing of the targeted group. And remember, both Uyghur and Mandarin are taught, not just one or the other.

Now consider the wider context. How have Western countries responded to (and promoted) Wahhabism? And, distinctly, how have they treated muslim people? We could spend all day discussing this, but consider that the response to a single terrorist attack was two wars of aggression where millions were killed or exiled (the people to be "liberated"), widespread islamophobia targeted at all brown people, a global system of sanctions and surveillance. Incomparable. The systematic destruction of peoples and cultures. And the weaponization of the reactions to those "interventions": Wahhabism itself, and related extremist islam-adjascent movements, are fostered by US proxies and used to destroy populations and designated enemies. ISIS emerged and thrived with US consent and was used against Syria and Kurdish breakaways. These situations were used for global recruitment, to provide real combat experience for extremists to take home for their own protects. This very much did happen re: Uyghurs in Xinjiang, there were active recruitment efforts to merge turkic and Wahhabist views to export folks to train in war against Syria and Kurdish breakaways, then return and carry out terrorist attacks to promote the creation of "East Turkestan", an invention of this group pf extremists with basically zero grounding in traditional Uyghur culture. These are the groups that carried out terrorist attacks in Xinjiang, these are the groups fostered by off-the-books US activities, these are the groups China responded to: a deliberate and funded attempt to break off an entire province of the country through the misery of its population and at odds with the vast majority of the people's positions and interests. Wings of these extremist groups were on the US' official lists of terrorist groups, only taken off so that they could be funded by the NED to push propaganda at Westerners.

And so we get to the intended impact of the Western response and propaganda. What have they pushed through, these people who "care" about Uyghurs?

• Sanctions targeting the development of civilian industry in Xinjiang. Agricultural and textile products, mostly. If successful, these would impoverish Uyghur people, not help them, and the propagandists are well aware of this. Victims of the propaganda are just their useful idiots who think they are helping human rights despite, in effect, contributing to a plan to make the targeted population miserable. Lies about slavery are projected onto "picking cotton", which the US actually did use chattel slavery to do, whereas Xinjiang is largely mechanized.

• Turning sentiment against China within the West. China is a competitor. US hegemony needs your consent to undermine China and these are planks in its platform.

• Promoting the aforementioned Wahhabist and related violent and oppressive groups, again with your manufactured consent. You have probably believed several lines that came directly from those odd ethnonationalist-with-transplanted-ideas groups funded by the NED. They are part of the same complex that killed a bunch of Uyghurs.

So, in summary:

• Reconfigure the scope of your view towards an entire country, as the simplistic narratives you've been told are sinophobic, orientalist, anticommunist propaganda that work primarily by telling you how to frame the question rather than informing you.

• Do media criticism if you want to have any chance of an accurate view of "enemies" designated by the West.

• Remember your own role in not contributing to manufacturing consent for war and deprivation, especially against the people you're supposedly sympathetic to. The situation in Ukraine has a corrolary here, where the West has been pushing hard to create the conditions of war for decades and is currently telling you to support a prolonged war effort at Ukrainians' expense, but characterizing it as support for Ukraine. It is very easy to do the exact opposite or your intent if you don't consider your position and audience.

Most millennials who grew up during the early aughts who remember 9/11 also remember the country's moment when it sank into anger, fury, and :frothingfash: over the attacks.

It was a response of anger and glee in that American purpose had been reignited from the aimlessness of a post-Cold War decade. And following that logic, the country descended into an orgy of jingoism, intensified racism, violence and death. The US wanted blood. The rest of the decade was a license by the public for the government to engage in its crimes of retribution.

Established media like the New York Times helped to engineer a justification for the invasion of Iraq, and there was very little pushback on this that it revealed to its audience upon retrospective reflection that the media had become - or always was - a mouthpiece for the government. Later some realized it was a mouthpiece of capital, the anima that compelled the state to act the way it does. But the acceptance and consumption of media as propaganda isn't an act of deception but a ritual for legitimacy that the government and the people are mutual partners in; a collective act of self-delusion to perpetuate the system of exploitation and oppression against political rivals domestic and foreign.

What I mean by this is that the US builds legitimacy for action, sanction, and intervention - as it has throughout its history - through proxies in the media, other nations, through defectors in antagonistic nations (using people as props; e.g: North Korean defectors, Cuban exiles, et cetera.) and institutions. To attack an enemy, one must first dehumanize them. Why does the US do these things? To dominate the world. But to dominate the world is a means to an end, and that end is to ensure the cheap supply of goods and labor to the core nations and ensure easy access to credit and debt to sustain the consumption of those goods & services. This is all in service of profit.

u/BowlingForDeez makes a good post here about why the US has suddenly become so antagonistic towards the PRC.

It's important to note that when it comes to LGBT issues, China is getting better.

How is America progressing on that front?

OP absolutely thank you for this post. So many people would simply see a group of people who broadly disagree with them on a topic and dig in their heels. You asked for more and clearer information and are even open to the possibility that you may be affected by propaganda. This is how good leftists, and good people, start.

If you're reading this and you posted a negative comment, consider deleting or amending it, this guy is a comrade fr

1. Child Labor

Not only is child labor illegal in China, but China's labor regulations are extremely progressive compared to the West, and the West is what I'd assume most would claim the "baseline" of what adequate labor regulations are [despite them of course not being adequate]; nearly all jobs have trade unions which are under the one CPC trade union [which meets twice every year and targets problems in every single union], most jobs have 30 minutes to an hour in addition to lunch to sleep [also happens in schools as well], jobs can't extend beyond 8.5 hours a day [with most jobs being between 7.5 hours to 8 hours, and to show this isn't arbitrary, my last job was 9.5 hours a day]. Days off are required under law to be provided for laborers on New Year’s, Spring Festival, International Labor Day (May Day), National Day, and so on. In regards to "high labor exploitation", I'm not sure what you're referring to by this, but China's annual national income rises by 16% every year [largest in the world, so is the 400% annual income rise since the 1980s], all pensions are nationalized, China has the lowest retirement age in the world, workplace safety standards are higher than all Capitalist countries, and more. Where did this narrative arise? Likely from the period during the 1980s to very early 2000s where heavy industrialization occurred, and the introduction of the foreign bourgeoisie began to properly occur, so the famous "sweatshops" [which lasted for an extremely short period, but did exist, and thus you have those Apple suicide net pictures and such] and things arose. Most people have nary a clue on China, and still believe they're something like this, thus coming to the conclusion that they're some dystopian labor farm. I'd also assume that, China challenging the West, while differently from the West being an exporting country, means that people fall under the belief that they're completely squeezing labor to the greatest degree in order to maximize profits.

2. Internet/Media Censorship

During the July 5th, 2009 terror attacks in Urumqi (the capital of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region in China), 197 people were killed and ~1700 were wounded. Facebook, Twitter, and Google refused to crack down on misinformation relating to the attacks which could contribute to further violence, and declined to give information relating to the attacks which had been communicated through such services. This prompted the central government to set up a (near-net) ban regarding most areas of mainland China of regular access to these websites via internet blocks. There are two things to note: firstly, it is not illegal to access these websites in China, and license revocations can be circumvented with VPNs which are also not illegal. Secondly, this ban had a dual approach: both to get rid of misinformation contributing to further deaths and to revoke the right of these corporations to profit from their use by Chinese citizens unimpeded (after they had demonstrated that they had no interest in the safety of such people).

To quote Lenin, “All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake ‘public opinion’ for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. This is a fact. No one will ever be able to refute it… The bourgeoisie (all over the world) is still very much stronger than we are. To place in its hands yet another weapon like freedom of political organization (= freedom of the press, for the press is the core and foundation of political organization) means facilitating the enemy’s task, means helping the class enemy. We have no wish to commit suicide, and therefore, we will not do this. We clearly see this fact: ‘freedom of the press’ means in practice that the international bourgeoisie will immediately buy up hundreds and thousands of Cadet, SocialistRevolutionary and Menshevik writers, and will organize their propaganda and fight against us. That is a fact. ‘They’ are richer than we are and will buy a ‘force’ ten times larger than we have, to fight us. No, we will not do it; we will not help the international bourgeoisie. How could you descend from a class appraisal-from the appraisal of the relations between all classes-to the sentimental, philistine appraisal? This is a mystery to me… Freedom of the press will help the force of the world bourgeoisie. That is a fact, ‘Freedom of the press’ will not help to purge the Communist Party in Russia of a number of its weaknesses… because this is not what the world bourgeoisie wants. But freedom of the press will be a weapon in the hands of this world bourgeoisie.”

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. V. I. Lenin: Collected Works, vol. 32, Progress Publishers, 1965.

3. Anti-LGBTQ

We must not look at historical development in a uniform manner; China emerged from feudalism only 70 years ago. I would like to see gay marriage legalized in China as well, but there are other LGBTQ developments that are promising (sources from state media):

China's first clinic for transgender children and adolescents set up in Shanghai (Global Times)

Mutual Guardianship (Sixth Tone)

And CGTN has produced a couple of LGBTQ documentaries you can find online

4. Uyghur Genocide

I have a post on this bookmarked in the Sino comm, but I'll quickly add some resources below

Xinjiang: A Report and Resource Compilation

Xinjiang Responds (video and written responses from people in Xinjiang)

State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China

Estimations of 1 million detainees (and onwards):

1. 2018 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination report authored by the NGO (Network of) Chinese Human Rights Defenders [which has received NED funding]

The report (which concludes 1.3-2 million detainees) was based on interviews with only 8 Uyghur individuals, then extrapolated to form percent estimates on the population of detainees in the XUAR

• 2015 IRS filing forms show that $819,553 (out of $820,023) of the organization’s funds came from government grants

• 2016 IRS filing forms: $859,091 (out of $1,284,893)

• 2017 IRS filing forms: $497,684 (out of $898,256)

• 2019 IRS filing forms: $757,884 (out of $760, 803)

2. Adrian Zenz, member of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Adrian Zenz’s deliberate fabrications regarding sterilization statistics [“new IUD”]

[On “net IUD” (~80% as misleading figure)]

Xinjiang Police Files (XPF) Debunk

5. Relations with the RF

China does not have pro-war relations with Russia, that would mean uniting with them in invading Ukraine which has not happened (China has lobbied for "peace" which you may see as one-sided). Xi and Putin are in good relations because of similar immediate aims and because of Russia's progressive foreign impact mirroring the Ottoman Empire (see Marx's comments on the latter). Russia is not a "good" country, they are not socialist, but strategic allyship should not immediately be thrown out because of this.